Should we trust George W. Bush?

World Net Daily ^ | 8/29/02 | Harry Browne

[feelin_poorly]

Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"

And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:

• that Iraq, which George Bush is dying to invade, still has "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten Americans directly;

• that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9-11 attacks (the infamous videotape demonstrated his joy at the success of the attacks, not his participation);

• that the people being imprisoned as terrorists really are terrorists – even though they've received no public trial (whether you believe terrorists deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. You don't even know that they are terrorists until they receive a fair trial under the Bill of Rights);

• that the Bush administration won't misuse the private information it's acquiring through its massive violations of civil liberties.

Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.

The record

So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?

Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)

Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.

But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.

• He's willing to give your tax money to foreign dictators who claim they "need" it (meaning they've gone too deeply in debt by spending money on palaces and other forms of self-aggrandizement);

• He wants to escalate the spending of your tax money on farm subsidies, health care, welfare, government schools, the War on Drugs, propaganda and other programs – none of which are authorized in the Constitution;

• He believes we should trust him and his minions when they tell us the unnamed people they've locked up are not entitled to the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

• He claims he can attack Iraq without a congressional declaration of war – even though the Constitution clearly gives such authority exclusively to Congress.

So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.

George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."

George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.

Is honesty important?

In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.

Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?

Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?

Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?

[VaBthang4]

He'll wrap himself in the Constitution...that'll protect him from the Nuclear blast.

[Lumberjack]

And what's gonna happen when THEY have a different interpretation than you do?

I guess that means that they would be thinking for themselves. Why does that frighten you so?

All I can do is present my case to them once they get to the age of reasoning. Its up to them at that point. As long as they make their own decisions and don't fall into a silly group mentality, I'll be happy. Failing that, oh well, not much I could do about it anyway, is there (assuming the time you are talking about is when they are legal adults)?

[Howlin]

Most conservatives believed the polls (big mistake), and were convinced that Bush was the only candidate who could defeat Gore.

Name. Let's have it. Who could have beaten Gore. Not who you HOPED might could, but who positively WOULD have.

Rather than voting "for" someone, they were voting "against" someone, and in so doing they selected the guy with the highest poll numbers.

That's something you tell yourself to justify your own beliefs.

And it's damn insulting to the other posters on FR; we KNEW who we were voting for and did so gladly.

We trust George W. Bush and it's obviously killing you.

[MJY1288]

Don't you mean Midol?

[Texasforever]

What is your definition of a loser then?

[KentuckyWoman]

If I want a real opinion on the Constitutionality of recent or proposed legislation, I'll ask someone like William Rehnquist or Clarence Thomas or Kenneth Starr, not some fruitloop ranting on the internet.

Hmmm..let's see here... this would be some of the same black-robed legislators that DISCOVERED a right to murder unborn children, a right to pornography, the 'seperation of church and state' and that blatantly ignores the rights and responsibilites of the individual states in favor of federal control. Yep! There are some REAL constitional scholars for you. NOT!

[VaBthang4]

LOL

[Howlin]

Thinking for themselves, i.e., having their OWN interpretation of the Constitution, doesn't scare ME at all.

Evidently it's giving YOU quite a bit of trouble though, because you keep saying nobody understands it but you.

[Texasforever]

Yep! There are some REAL constitional scholars for you. NOT!

AHHHHH a wannbe Chief Justice. LMAO

[Mo1]

oh Baby !!!

[Mo1]

Cold Meds work too

[KentuckyWoman]

Oh sure, France aided us during the revolutionary war, due to no self-interests of their own!

The point that you seem to obviously have missed is that France stuck it's neck in the noose with ours with only a hope of future trade as any possible reward. They weren't hoping for hand-outs down the road and their goose would have been cooked right along with ours had we lost. Capish?

[lonestar]

2) Bush duped conservatives into believing he was a real conservative (school vouchers and privatization of social security).

Excuse me! Bush didn't "dupe" anybody. He was more conservative as governor than he has been as president but I truly believe he might have been more conservative as pres. had he won the popular vote.

Another thing, can you remember when a president has had a worse first year dealing with things that were not of his making?

3) Most conservatives believed the polls (big mistake), and were convinced that Bush was the only candidate who could defeat Gore. Rather than voting "for" someone, they were voting "against" someone, and in so doing they selected the guy with the highest poll numbers.

And who do you think conservatives should have voted for? I was for Bush from the "get-go" because I think he was a good governor.

I am proud to say I have been very active in three Bush campaigns!

[justshe]

Just happen to have this right here in case you need it:

(I KNOW Kentucky woman was saying this did NOT exist)

_________________________________________________________________

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.


One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
__________________________________________________________________________

Gone for just an hour and y'all are still playing?

[Mo1]

Oh that's right .. I forgot

[Miss Marple]

Thanks for he information. I am retiring for the night. See you tomorrow!

[Texasforever]

Given her state of mind maybe counting black helicopters may do the trick

[KentuckyWoman]

If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having these arguments

Of course, the Federalist Papers were written for, what was at that time, the common man who, for the most part, were farmers. Just goes to show that people during that era who were mostly homeschooled in history, spelling, penmanship, etc., were better educated than people are now. We won't even get into the subversions of the Constitution that took place during the Jackson and Lincoln administrations. ;-)

[Torie]

Bush is going to Congress for another authorization, and will present the evidence which Cheney alluded to, and Congress will give him another green light, so this is moot. Even if some in Congress have doubts, denying the green light would be so disasterous for US policy, that it simply will not happen. Bush has the whip hand here, and he will be responsible for what happens. The buck stops in the oval office.

[Mo1]

Just goes to show that people during that era who were mostly homeschooled in history, spelling, penmanship, etc., were better educated than people are now.

So let me guess .. you didn't like Ozzy Osborne's TV show huh??